In the transformative landscape of Bangladesh, marked by progress from modest beginnings, the realms of politics, economics, corruption, finance, inflation, and unchecked commodity prices stand as formidable challenges. Amidst this, a new predicament has emerged, resonating with unrest—the ‘Dr. Yunus Issue.’ Renowned economist and professor, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for his contributions to providing microcredit, bringing tranquility. While some refer to Professor Yunus as the founder of microcredit or the “Microcredit Godfather” in English, research suggests that the practice of interest-free microcredit for poverty alleviation was prevalent as early as the beginning of the 18th century.

You Can Also Read: LABYRINTH OF DECEIT: A CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION

Aidan Hollis and Arthur Sweetman’s research article, published by the Economics Department of the University of Toronto in Canada, highlights “In the mid-nineteenth century, hundreds of loan fund societies were making small loans to as many as 20% of Irish households. These communitybased institutions originated in the early 1700s but mushroomed in the 1830s after Parliament took legislative action to encourage them as part of an effort to stimulate privately funded poverty relief. Many of the funds survived the Great Famine and some continued to operate into the twentieth century.

Julia Kagan has written in her “Microfinance Definition: Benefits, History, and How It Works” says, “Microfinance isn’t a new concept. Small operations of this type have existed since the 18th century. In its modern form, microfinancing became popular on a large scale in the 1970s. The first organization to receive attention was the Grameen Bank, started in 1983 by Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh.”

Working with microcredit, Dr. Yunus’ Nobel Prize win is a source of pride and fortune for Bangladesh. While the contemporaneous BNP-Jamaat coalition Government refrained from official congratulations, the Awami League, in opposition, expressed heartfelt felicitations and warm wishes. Standing by Dr. Yunus’ initiative of bridging the urban-rural divide through affordable mobile technology and reducing the gap in technology usage, Bangabandhu’s daughter, Sheikh Hasina, granted permission for the launch of PalliPhone (now Grameen Telecom) in 1997, shortly after assuming office.

LETTER DIPLOMACY: MEDDLING IN JUDICIARY?

The question arises: why did Dr. Yunus recently transcend boundaries, not only criticizing the current government but also publishing statements or letters featuring 160 or 242 distinguished individuals, including 40 Nobel laureates, and 12 American senators, in foreign newspapers, creating pressure on the government? Through this, Dr. Yunus is inadvertently tarnishing the nation’s image by engaging in undignified attempts to pressurize the government.

Dr. Yunus has taken his opposition to the government to the crossroads of the judiciary. A self-interested and controversial environment, both domestic and international, is attempting to question the integrity of the judiciary in Dr. Yunus’ case. No special court has been established for Dr. Yunus’ trial, and no independent judge has been appointed. The same courts and judges that serve the justice for 170 million people are overseeing Dr. Yunus’ case.

LAW PUNISHES YUNUS

Unlike covert kangaroo courts, justice is being dispensed in open courts, not behind closed doors, as advocated by autocratic leaders like BNP’s founder Ziaur Rahman. The Prime Minister, through press releases and spokespersons, has called for the monitoring of judicial proceedings involving Dr. Yunus. She emphasizes that if international experts desire, they can come and witness whether Dr. Yunus is being unfairly prosecuted.

Yet, the media spin doctors have portrayed Dr. Yunus’ legal proceedings as a conspiracy, urging the cessation of the trial processes. This is a blatant intervention in the country’s sovereignty, constitution, and judicial system. Section 94(4) of the Bangladesh Constitution grants complete independence to the judiciary, and according to the constitution, judges are entirely free in their judicial duties. The statement and press release challenge the principles of Bangladesh’s constitution and the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) recognition of the fundamental rights of workers.

In this letter and statement, the call for a ‘neutral’ judge to preside over the trial against Dr. Yunus echoes through, casting a shadow over the judicial system of Bangladesh. Such a plea is detrimental to any nation.

SPIN DOCTORS’ CONSPIRACY AT PLAY

The former U.S. President and recent survey results suggest that the potential future USA President, Donald Trump, has raised questions about the impartiality of judges appointed for his trial and the fairness of their verdicts. He has labeled this phenomenon as the death of governance by law in the United States.

Will the media spin doctors advocate for a neutral judge to preside over Trump’s trial? Will they call for a halt to the judicial process? No, they won’t. Behind the statements and letters regarding Dr. Yunus in Bangladesh lies a special interest and a calculated agenda. The issuance of statements and letters regarding Dr. Yunus’ trial in Bangladesh is intertwined with vested interests and premeditated motives. When the call for ‘impartial’ and ‘neutral’ judges is made in conjunction with the suspension of judicial processes in Bangladesh, it becomes evident that a sinister conspiracy is at play within the nation’s elections and politics.

NOBEL FAME DOESN’T AUTHORIZE BREACHING MARGINS

The discord between Dr. Yunus and the government is initiated when he refuses to abide by the country’s retirement age laws, a universal norm across the globe where individuals from both government and private professions are required to take retirement at a certain age. The retirement age for the Managing Director position at Grameen Bank was set at 60 years, yet Dr. Yunus, despite violating the retirement law for ten years, continued to hold the position even at the age of 70.

The turning point in this narrative occurs a few years after Dr. Yunus’ Nobel Peace Prize victory. A Norwegian journalist, working for a Norwegian television channel, produces a report focusing on irregularities within Grameen Bank. This report not only highlights various anomalies within the operations of the bank but also brings to light the fund transfer for the Grameen Kalyan fund from Grameen Bank. This revelation sparks a significant controversy.

The aftermath of this report sees heightened tensions, as the Norwegian Embassy in Bangladesh and subsequently the Norwegian Parliament and Cabinet engage in discussions about the matter. Multiple letters are exchanged, and the issue becomes a topic of conversation in the Norwegian government. Eventually, under the pressure of the Norwegian government’s criticism, the fund is transferred back from the Grameen Kalyan fund to Grameen Bank.

The headline of the newspaper echoes the inhumane interest rate and some instances of unethical collection methods by Grameen Bank. In response, the Ministry of Finance establishes a review committee to investigate Grameen Bank’s affairs, and Dr. Yunus is informed by the government to surpass his retirement age. Despite various allegations, no disciplinary actions, such as dismissal, termination, or forced retirement, have been legally imposed against Dr. Yunus. Instead, in 2011, at the age of 70, he was requested to retire and work as an ‘Emeritus Advisor.’ However, Dr. Yunus rejects the proposal and files a case against the government. Ultimately, after a legal battle in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, he faces defeat. The question arises: can this be considered an unjust intrusion by the government? Dr. Yunus, in his appeal, emphasizes that he is the founder of Grameen Bank, a non-governmental entity with 97% of its shares owned by poor women.

The court explicitly states that Dr. Yunus was merely an entrepreneur behind the establishment of Grameen Bank, not its founder. The Bangladesh government, in fact, holds the establishment credit, as Grameen Bank is a statutory national institution, not a private bank. Dr. Yunus served as the Managing Director during its formative years.

GRAMEEN BANK IS NOT YUNUS’S INSTITUTION

In September 1983, the government enacted an ordinance titled “Grameen Bank Ordinance” (Ordinance No. 46). At its inception, Grameen Bank started with a capital of only three crore taka. Most of this amount, specifically 1 crore 80 lakh taka, belonged to the government, while 1 crore 20 lakh taka constituted the loans granted to the borrowers. Notably, there was no personal investment from Dr. Muhammad Yunus in Grameen Bank.

Unfortunately, despite the legal battle resulting in defeat, Dr. Yunus sought to restore his position as the Managing Director of Grameen Bank by garnering support from foreign powers, particularly the United States and other international organizations. He engaged in lobbying with legal luminaries in various European countries and approached influential figures like the then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Cherie Blair, the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to exert pressure on the government for a change in decision.

Taking refuge in multiple countries and organizations is not something unprecedented for a Nobel laureate facing personal challenges.

DR YUNUS’S TAX DODGING

Dr. Yunus faces another legal battle against him in the second case filed. In accordance with the 1990 Gift Law, he receives a notice from the National Board of Revenue (NBR) regarding tax claims for the three fiscal years.

Contrary to the gift claims, Dr. Yunus challenges the validity of these three notices issued by the NBR, arguing that, according to the Gift Law, the NBR cannot claim tax against the gifts.

On November 20, 2014, the court withdrew Yunus’ application. Subsequently, in 2015, he filed three writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court finds proof submitted to it that Dr. Yunus was not liable for tax on the gifts under Section 4 of the Gift Law. The High Court orders Dr. Yunus to pay the outstanding amount of over 12 crore taka to the NBR for the fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. In the face of this judgment, he appeals to the Appellate Division, engaging in a legal battle but ultimately loses, paying the imposed 12 crore taka tax.

LEGAL BATTLE: WHAT LAW SAID?

The question arises: does this verdict lean towards justice or persecution? According to the Donation Law of 1990, Section 3 stipulates that any individual shall pay tax at the specified rates on all donations made during any fiscal year. In essence, the person making the donation is obliged to settle the tax based on the detailed rates provided by the government for any financial year in which charitable activities are conducted. As per the provisions of the Donation Law, the tax rates increase progressively: 5% on the first five lakh taka, 10% on the subsequent ten lakh taka, 15% on the following twenty lakh taka, and 20% on amounts exceeding that. The law also explicitly mentions the criteria and process for a donor to become exempt, leaving the donor within the purview of tax liability.

Examining the intricacies of the law prompts the question of whether this ruling is an endeavor toward justice or a potential quagmire for the donor. The 1990 Donation Law, under Section 4, addresses the scope of exemption from tax for the donor.

The following donations are exempt from tax: (a) if the donated property is located outside Bangladesh; (b) if the donation is made to the government or any local authority; (c) if the donation is made for the purpose of establishing any trust or institution as specified below:

1. Any university or educational institution approved by any law in force in Bangladesh, or any polytechnic institute approved or operated by the government.
2. Any hospital approved or operated by the government or any local authority or aided by the government or any local authority.
3. Any fund or trust created or approved by the government for combating water-loggings or disasters.
4. Any religious institution established or approved for non-profit purposes in Bangladesh, excluding personal religious institutions, or any institution established for religious or charitable purposes established and recognized under the law and functioning according to it.
5. Any individual donation to an institution registered under the law, established for religious or charitable purposes, and approved or recognized by the government, not operated for the welfare of the general public, will be subject to 20% or 1 lakh taka of the total prescribed income for the relevant tax year, whichever is lower
6. If the donation is made for the sustenance of a dependent relative during the donor’s son or daughter’s marriage, up to a maximum value of 20,000 taka.
7. If the donation is made through a will.
8. If the donation is made for funeral expenses.
9. If the donation is made to a son, daughter, father, mother, husband, wife, grandson, or granddaughter.

Excluding the aforementioned exemptions, no person is required to pay tax on donations exceeding a value of 20,000 taka in any financial year under this law. Additionally, the government, through public notices in the government gazette, can grant exemptions to any class of donations or any individual from the purview of this law. If someone donates outside the specified categories, the donor is obligated to pay tax on that donation.

SHREWD ASCENT

In the fiscal year 2011-12, Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus donated 61 crore 57 lakh 69 thousand taka to the Yunus Trust, Yunus Family Trust, and Yunus Centre. In 2012-13, he donated 8 crore 15 lakh taka to the Dr. Muhammad Yunus Trust. Furthermore, in the fiscal year 2013-14, he donated 7 crore 65 lakh taka to the Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus Trust and Yunus Family Trust.

In this manner, having transferred a total of 77 crore 37 lakh 69 thousand taka to the trusts, Dr. Yunus claims that, since he donated the money for the welfare of relatives and to address end-of-life concerns, he should be exempt from tax. As per Section 4(7)(h) and (j) of the NBR Donation Law, 1990, Dr. Yunus argues that he qualifies for tax exemption. The NBR Donation Law, 1990, in Sections 4(7) (h) and (j), explicitly mentions this aspect of tax exemption. After reviewing donation and income tax returns, it was found that Dr. Yunus himself is the founder and trustee of these trusts.

The purpose of the law is to exempt someone from tax if they are critically ill or on a deathbed and choose to donate their wealth to close relatives, a practice known as “deathbed donation.” However, in the case of Dr. Yunus, there is no evidence that he was in such a situation or has ever been. Therefore, the argument that “he donated from a deathbed” is baseless and not acceptable.

According to Section 4(7)(h) of the NBR Donation Law, 1990, it is stated that if a donation is made to family members, including sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, or sisters, the donor will be exempt from tax. However, Dr. Yunus donated to trusts. Among the trustees of Yunus Centre, one is Dr. Yunus himself, and another is Dr. Yunus’s paternal uncle. On the other hand, the trustees of Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus Trust and Yunus Family Trust are not close relatives of the donor. Therefore, in this context, he does not qualify for a tax exemption.

As per Section 2(1)(c) of the Donation Law, 1990, a donation is defined as the voluntary transfer of movable or immovable property to another person without any consideration in terms of money or money’s worth. Dr. Yunus has not transferred his donations to any individual but rather created trusts. In essence, he has held the wealth within the trusts for the benefit of himself, his wife, and his daughter. Since the trust is established for their maintenance, healthcare, travel, and other expenses, Dr. Yunus’s donated funds are not exempt under Sections 4(7)(h) and (j) of the Donation Law.

If Dr. Yunus’s initiative is legally acknowledged, every wealthy individual could create trusts for themselves and their family members, claiming tax exemption. However, the legality of this claim is questionable and may not be applicable under the existing legal framework.

EXPLOITING EMPLOYEES

Regarding the third case filed against Dr. Yunus, it involves the employees of Grameen Telecom. They have filed multiple cases, including allegations of illegal deductions from their provident fund, unlawful charges deducted from legal fees and employees’ salaries, and misappropriation of Tk 45.52 crore from the employees’ welfare fund.

For nearly five years, legal proceedings continued, and in May 2022, outside the court, Dr. Yunus and the employees reached a settlement through an agreement. All 110 cases were withdrawn as part of this settlement.

In the context of Grameen Telecom, 176 employees had accused Dr. Yunus of misappropriating Tk 400 crore in connection with their provident fund. The Chief Justice, Muhammad Khurshid Alam, informed the government’s sole company bench about this information through the lawyer advocate Yusuf Ali.

The question arises as to why Dr. Yunus, who claims not to interfere with the rights of workers, settled with the employees by giving Tk 400 crore. This case raises concerns about the rule of law and the administration of justice. Highlighting this incident as a distortion of facts in international circles, the cases against the workers have been portrayed as unverified. In their letters, American senators claimed that over the past decade, at least 150 unverified cases have been filed against Yunus in Bangladesh.

Discussing the cases against Dr. Yunus is prohibited by law, so there is no opportunity to mention those cases in this article. Dr. Yunus has fostered close connections with Western political elites and Nobel laureates, utilizing them for personal gain. By intervening in Bangladesh’s sovereignty and judiciary affairs, he has extended unwarranted influence from external powers. The senators’ letter, neglecting the workers’ interests, stands as evidence in support of Yunus. Now questions looms, will history testify that the Nobel victory brought blessings or curses to Bangladesh?

The post Conundrum of Dr Yunus’ Nobel Peace Prize appeared first on Press Xpress.